Overview of NHTSA Pedestrian Crashworthiness … Fit Passenger Car 2016 Nissan Rogue Small SUV 2016 Toyota Prius Passenger Car 2015 Toyota Sienna Minivan 5 Assessment of US Fleet Using

Over view of NHTSA Pedestrian

Crashworthiness Research

SAE Government Industry MeetingJanuary 24-26, 2018

Over view

2

• Assessment of US fleet using EuroNCAP procedures• US vehicle fleet performance• Lab-to-lab consistency on global platform vehicles• Testing and evaluation of head countermeasures• Relative performance in lower extremity protection and Part 581 tests• Evaluation of the TRL upper legform

Over view• Assessment of US fleet using EuroNCAP procedures

• US vehicle fleet performance• Lab-to-lab consistency on global platform vehicles• Testing and evaluation of head countermeasures• Relative performance in lower extremity protection and Part 581 tests• Evaluation of the TRL upper legform

• Pedestrian crash data analysis• Frequency of US injuries associated with risk measured by tests• Isolated knee cruciate ligament injuries in the field• State data analysis: old vs new vehicles• Thorax injuries: do head/leg countermeasures protect against them?

3

Assessment of US Fleet Using EuroNCAP Procedures

• Current state of pedestrian protection in US fleet using established test methods

• EuroNCAP Test Procedures & Scoring • Head• Lower Leg (FlexPLI)• Upper Leg (TRL)

Child HeadformAdult Headform

Upper Legform

Flex Lower Legform

4


Vehicles Tested:

Model Year (MY) Make Model Description2017 Audi A4 Passenger Car

2016 Chevrolet Malibu Passenger Car

2016 Chevrolet Tahoe Standard SUV

2016 Ford Edge MPV

2016 Ford F-150 Standard Pickup Truck

2016 Honda Fit Passenger Car

2016 Nissan Rogue Small SUV

2016 Toyota Prius Passenger Car

2015 Toyota Sienna Minivan

5


Vehicles Tested:

Model Year (MY) Make Model Description2017 Audi A4 Passenger Car

2016 Chevrolet Malibu Passenger Car

2016 Chevrolet Tahoe Standard SUV

2016 Ford Edge MPV

2016 Ford F-150 Standard Pickup Truck

2016 Honda Fit Passenger Car

2016 Nissan Rogue Small SUV

2016 Toyota Prius Passenger Car

2015 Toyota Sienna Minivan

6

*Global platform vehicles

Head Test Results

• US vehicles performed similarly to the 4 EuroNCAP/EU models


VehicleHead Scores (Max 24 pts)

VRTC EuroNCAP

2017 Audi A4 17.00 --

2016 Chevrolet Malibu 16.36 --

2016 Chevrolet Tahoe 14.18 --

2016 Ford Edge 16.57 16.04

2016 Ford F-150 9.82 --

2016 Honda Fit 17.68 17.10

2016 Nissan Rogue 17.56 15.44

2016 Toyota Prius 18.36 16.91

2015 Toyota Sienna 16.67 --

Avg Score (% of Max) 16.02 (67%) 16.37 (68%)

7


Head Test Results

• US vehicles performed similarly to the 4 EuroNCAP/EU models• VRTC and EuroNCAP head scores found to be relatively consistent for

global platform vehicles

VehicleHead Scores (Max 24 pts)

VRTC EuroNCAP

2017 Audi A4 17.00 --



2016 Ford Edge 16.57 16.04

2016 Ford F-150 9.82 --

2016 Honda Fit 17.68 17.10

2016 Nissan Rogue 17.56 15.44

2016 Toyota Prius 18.36 16.91


Avg Score (% of Max) 16.02 (67%) 16.37 (68%)

8


Lower Leg Results(FlexPLI)

• 4 EU global platform vehicles performed well when tested by EuroNCAP

VehicleLower Leg Scores (Max 6 pts)

VRTC EuroNCAP2017 Audi A4 2.24 --



2016 Ford Edge 0.40 6.00

2016 Ford F-150 0.00 --

2016 Honda Fit 0.00 6.00

2016 Nissan Rogue 6.00 6.00

2016 Toyota Prius 4.41 6.00


Avg Score (% of Max) 1.67 (28%) 6.00 (100%)

9



• The front end/bumper part differences between US and EU versions varied by vehicle

VehicleLower Leg Scores (Max 6 pts)

VRTC EuroNCAP2017 Audi A4 2.24 --



2016 Ford Edge 0.40 6.00

2016 Ford F-150 0.00 --

2016 Honda Fit 0.00 6.00




Avg Score (% of Max) 1.67 (28%) 6.00 (100%)

10


• Part 581 does not appear to be the sole obstacle for good pedestrian leg scores– Non-applicable vehicles: Nissan Rogue did well / Ford Edge did not– Applicable vehicles: Toyota Prius did well / Honda Fit did not


VehiclePart 581 Applicable to

US Version?

Lower Leg Scores (Max 6 pts)

VRTC EuroNCAP2017 Audi A4 Yes 2.24 --

2016 Chevrolet Malibu Yes 1.99 --

2016 Chevrolet Tahoe No 0.00 --

2016 Ford Edge No 0.40 6.00

2016 Ford F-150 No 0.00 --

2016 Honda Fit Yes 0.00 6.00

2016 Nissan Rogue No 6.00 6.00

2016 Toyota Prius Yes 4.41 6.00

2015 Toyota Sienna No 0.00 --

Avg Score (% of Max) 1.67 (28%) 6.00 (100%)

11


Upper Leg Results(EEVC/TRL)

• 4 EU global platform vehicles performed moderately well when tested by EuroNCAP

VehicleUpper Leg Scores (Max 6 pts)VRTC EuroNCAP

2017 Audi A4 5.17 --



2016 Ford Edge 0.80 3.56

2016 Ford F-150 1.20 --

2016 Honda Fit 6.00 3.23




Avg Score (% of Max) 3.52 (59%) 4.25 (71%)

12


Upper Leg Results(EEVC/TRL)

• Mixed performance within US models– Passenger vehicles performed moderately well– Pickups/SUVs did not score as well

VehicleUpper Leg Scores (Max 6 pts)VRTC EuroNCAP

2017 Audi A4 5.17 --



2016 Ford Edge 0.80 3.56

2016 Ford F-150 1.20 --

2016 Honda Fit 6.00 3.23




Avg Score (% of Max) 3.52 (59%) 4.25 (71%)

13


Summary VehicleTotal Vehicle Scores (Max 36 pts)

VRTC EuroNCAP2017 Audi A4 24.41 --2016 Chevrolet Malibu 21.75 --2016 Chevrolet Tahoe 14.98 --2016 Ford Edge 17.77 25.602016 Ford F-150 11.02 --2016 Honda Fit 23.68 26.332016 Nissan Rogue 29.56 27.442016 Toyota Prius 28.68 27.732016 Toyota Sienna 19.10 --Avg Score (% of Max) 21.22 (59%) 26.78 (74%)

14

Lab-to-Lab Consistency• Tested 2016 Toyota Prius & 2016 Ford Edge

– Same head impact locations as EuroNCAP

• VRTC and EuroNCAP HIC results found to be consistent!

Impact LocationHIC

VRTC EuroNCAPManufacturer

PredictionC,1,-2 495 594 <650

C,5,-1 335 351 <650

C,5,+4 366 605 <650

C,1,-5 999 1043 1350-1700

C,7,±6 918 909 1000-1350

A,9,-4 722 1017 650-1000

Impact LocationHIC

VRTC EuroNCAPManufacturer

PredictionC,6,-3 496 594 <650

C,2,3 915 767 650-1000

C,4,7 1127 1332 1000-1350

C,4,-5 569 642 650-1000

C,5,-2 496 573 <650

A,12,-6 449 503 <650

A,10,-5 1827 1904 >1700

2016 Toyota Prius 2016 Ford Edge

• = Mfg Prediction• < Mfg Prediction• > Mfg Prediction

15


Active Hood Systems• Outfitted two US vehicles with EU model active hood system parts (i.e.

hinges, actuators, hood latch strikers)– 2017 Audi A4 (photos below) & 2017 Cadillac ATS

Hood Attachment

Surface

StructuralAttachment

Surface

Actuator

Sliding Direction

Hinge + Actuator Hood Latch Striker

16


Active Hood Systems• Performed tests in the undeployed state and deployed-static state

Undeployed Deployed-Static

17


Active Hood Systems• Head impact results

Impact Location

HIC

Undeployed Deployed Static

C,1,0 945 795

C,7,0 621 698

C,9.-7 1053 1153

C,7,+5 703 556

C,3,-7 1085 766

A,8,0 875 450

2017 Audi A4

Impact Location

HICUndeployed Deployed Static

C,6,+6 1923 400

C,5,0 2753 299

A,8,0 1793 232

2014 Cadillac ATS

• Small decrease or similar HIC• Large decrease in HIC Strut tower

intrusion18


EU Focus US FocusInjection Molded

Foam

US Focus

EU Focus

No Ribs

Molded Ribs

Relative performance in lower extremity protection and Part 581 tests• 2011/2012 US Ford Focus• 2012 EU Ford Focus

Front Underbody Deflector Panel

Bumper Beam & Absorber

19


L+5 L+1 L-3

Relative performance in lower extremity protection and Part 581 tests• Lower legform tests on Ford Focus

– EU Focus is softer at inboard locations

L+1 L-3 L+5

20


L+5 L-3L+1

Relative performance in lower extremity protection and Part 581 tests• Lower legform tests on Ford Focus

– EU Focus is softer at inboard locations

L+1 L-3 L+5

21


Relative performance in lower extremity protection and Part 581 tests• Part 581 tests on 2012 US Ford Focus & 2012 EU Ford Focus

Without Upper Plane With Upper Plane

22



Left Corner Impact:• 60° from centerline• 16” high

23



US – Center w/ Upper Plane EU – Center w/ Upper Plane

24


us EU us EU us EU us EU us

2.5 mph

1.5 mph

2.5 mph

Front Bumper 12 Inches Right of Centerline

(between L +1 and L +5 in

Flex test*)

Front Bumper Left Corner (L-3 in Flex test)

Front Bumper Centerline (L +1 in Flex test)

Front Bumper Right Corner (L +5 in Flex test)

without

Upper

Plane

without

Upper

Plane

with Upper

Plane

with Upper

Plane

-307

-279

118

124

-584

-285

-4575

162

Minor scuffs on

fascia;

small crack in

front grille; no

headlight

damage

Hood dent; large

scuffs on

fascia; large crack

in grille; no headlight

damage

340

334

372

308

257

162

186

327

27.6

25.5

30.2

25.0

18.6

14.6

12.6

24.6

12.9

10.1

11 .5

14.2

9.8

5.8

4.3

*Flex leg measurements shown are average of L+1 and L+525


Centerline impact shows a much higher force in the EU version due to the pendulum upper plane making contact with the hood

26



More significant damage in the EU version due to softer components for pedestrian safety

27



• 3 of 4 impact locations (inboard) showed much lower Flex measurementsin the EU version

• The 4th (outboard) location showed similar results between EU and US versions

28



Evaluation of EEVC/TRL Upper Legform• Feasibility of testing US vehicles

– Passenger vehicles – no issues– Pickups/SUVs – no issues for all but one

• 2016 Ford F-150– Glancing impact between upper

legform and top of bumper– Not a realistic impact scenario

29


Evaluation of EEVC/TRL Upper Legform• Feasibility of testing US vehicles• Repeatability / Reproducibility / Durability / Biofidelity

30


Evaluation of EEVC/TRL Upper Legform• Feasibility of testing US vehicles• Repeatability / Reproducibility / Durability / Biofidelity• Plan to evaluate the Advanced PLI (aPLI)

Isshiki et al. 2017

31


Pedestrian Crash Data Analysis

• Percentage of pedestrians affected by test procedures (NTDB & PCDS)

Percentage of pedestrians with head/face injuries (NTDB) X

Percentage of head-injured pedestrians who sustained

injuries in headform test zone (PCDS)

What percentage of pedestrians would be affected by a headform (or upper

legform or lower legform) test?

32

Pedestrian Crash Data Analysis• Percentage of pedestrians affected by test procedure (NTDB & PCDS)• Frequency of isolated cruciate injuries (NTDB)

What is the relative importance of measuring shear versus bending in a pedestrian legform?

Collateral Injuries Only(BENDING)

Cruciate Injuries

Only(SHEAR)

Both

33


• Percentage of pedestrians affected by test procedure (NTDB & PCDS)• Frequency of isolated cruciate injuries (NTDB)• Injury risk reduction with pedestrian protection (SDS)

18,000+ pedestrian cases from State Data System (SDS)

Is injury risk reduced with later-model vehicles that are more likely

to contain pedestrian protection countermeasures?

Martin P & Pfeiffer MSAE Government Industry Meeting 2017

34

Distribution of injuries by bodyregion in NTDB pedestrian cases (focus on thorax injury)

Is thorax injury risk reduced by head and upper leg/pelvis

protection countermeasures?

35


• Percentage of pedestrians affected by test procedure (NTDB & PCDS)• Frequency of isolated cruciate injuries (NTDB)• Injury risk reduction with pedestrian protection (SDS)• Thorax injury risk reduction with pedestrian protection (NTDB)

Summary• Assessment of US fleet using EuroNCAP procedures

• Nine vehicles tested– Head: Scored well and similarly to EU vehicles– Lower Leg: 581 does not appear to be sole obstacle for good scores– Upper Leg: clear difference between passenger cars/small SUVs and trucks/large SUVs/minivans

• Good VRTC-EuroNCAP lab consistency in head tests on global platform vehicles• Able to adapt EU-version active hood systems to US-version vehicles and test them• Part 581 tests on US & EU Focus

– Pendulum forces: Both US & EU versions met the requirement– Damage: EU version had more damage than US version

• Adjustments to EuroNCAP upper leg procedure may be necessary for pickup trucks

• Pedestrian crash data analysis• Ongoing studies investigating important elements of pedestrian protection

36

Thank You

Brian Suntay, Transportation Research Center [email protected]

Ann Mallory, Transportation Research Center [email protected]

Jason Stammen, NHTSA Vehicle Research and Test [email protected]

37

mailto:[email protected]



OVERVIEW OF NHTSA PEDESTRIANCRASHWORTHINESS RESEARCH

Documents

Overview of NHTSA Pedestrian Crashworthiness … Fit Passenger Car 2016 Nissan Rogue Small SUV 2016 Toyota Prius Passenger Car 2015 Toyota Sienna Minivan 5 Assessment of US Fleet Using